THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT has just offered lifeboats to thousands of poor children
in Milwaukee, who will now be free to use vouchers at religious schools if that is their
choice. The state Supreme Court has offered this escape from failing public schools
over the objections of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Education
Association and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Note those groups: They are the people who claim to speak for the poor and less
fortunate. But the true contours of this debate should now be clear to everyone.
Conservative foundations, public-interest law firms and private charities have teamed
up to offer a better education to thousands of mostly black and Hispanic students.

At least in Wisconsin, "school choice"has made it into a safe lifeboat

Opponents of school vouchers have lined up with the teachers unions and so-called civil
libertarians to stand in the schoolhouse door and proclaim: Public school monopoly
now, public school monopoly tomorrow, public school monopoly forever!

Isn't it interesting that the people who cheer lustily for ethnic and cultural "diversity" are
so hostile to religious diversity?

The opponents had argued that the Milwaukee plan, which would allow parents to use
publicly funded vouchers at religious or private non-sectarian schools, amounts to an
unconstitutional "establishment" of religion. But it's hard to see how allowing parents to
make this choice -- for Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and other schools -- does
anything to favor one church over another. And the court so ruled.

This is not spending public money on particular churches so much as it is helping
parents with the task of educating their children. It is analogous to the federal practice
of permitting taxpayers to deduct donations to religious groups and institutions from
their taxes. This does not advance any particular church, though it does generally
support religion.

Opponents of vouchers often use the so-called "skimming" argument. They argue that a
voucher system will permit some lucky kids to escape from bad schools, leaving the
rest behind. There are two answers to this.

In the first place, even if it were true that there would never be enough money to
provide vouchers for everyone, it is hard to see how it is moral to deny opportunity to
anyone.As one school-choice advocate put it: "If the Titanic
has too few lifeboats to save everyone, does that mean no one should use one?"

But as actual experience with voucher programs has shown -- and this is the second
answer to the "skimming" argument -- the public schools tend to improve when
vouchers are permitted. Competition, that most American of ideas, works.

In East Harlem, N.Y., for example, a choice program has been in effect since 1974.
According to a new study by two political scientists at the State University of New
York, East Harlem's schools were at the bottom of the city's system when choice was
first introduced. But scores began rising steadily -- not just at the new alternative
schools but at the old public schools as well -- with the advent of choice. Professors
Paul Teske and Mark Schneider told The New York Times, "The data show quite
clearly that choice in District 4 has not produced any loser schools. To the contrary, our
data show most of these schools have improved over time, suggesting that choice has
put competitive pressure on all schools to improve."

The teachers unions, while careful to couch their opposition to choice in altruistic terms,
always wind up pressing for more money. But as the District of Columbia proves,
spending may be good for teachers but has no effect on pupil performance. The
District of Columbia spends $8,290 per student, compared with a national average of
$5,528 (most Catholic schools charge tuition of under $2,000 and yet achieve much
better results). Seventy-eight percent of D.C.'s fourth-graders are below basic
proficiency in reading, 80 percent of eighth-graders are below proficiency in math, and
40 percent of high school students don't graduate.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has just added its oar to those pulling for the nation's
poorest
kids.

6/9/98: These girls say no to sex, yes to excellence
6/5/98: Lewinsky's ex-lawyer would feel right at home as Springer guest6/2/98: English? Si; Republican? No! 5/29/98: The truth about women and work5/27/98: Romance in the '90s 5/25/98:Taxing smokers for fun and profit5/19/98: China's friend in the White House
5/15/98: Look out feminists: here comes the true backlash
5/12/98: The war process?
5/8/98: Where's daddy?
5/5/98: The joys of boys
5/1/98: Republicans move on education reform
4/28/98: Reagan was right 4/24/98: The key to Pol Pot 4/21/98: The patriot's channel 4/19/98: Child-care day can't replace mom4/15/98: Tax time4/10/98: Armey states obvious, gets clobbered4/7/98: A nation complacent?4/1/98: Bill Clinton's African adventure3/27/98: Understanding Arkansas3/24/98: Jerry Springer's America3/20/98: A small step for persecuted minorities3/17/98: Skeletons in every closet?3/13/98: Clinton's idea of a fine judge3/10/98: Better than nothing?3/6/98: Of fingernails and freedom3/3/98: Read JWR! :0)2/27/98: Dumb and Dumber2/24/98: Reagan reduced poverty more than Clinton2/20/98: Rally Round the United Nations?2/17/98: In Denial2/13/98: Reconsidering Theism2/10/98: Waiting for the facts?2/8/98: Cat got the GOP's tongue?2/2/98: Does America care about immorality?1/30/98: How to judge Clinton's denials1/27/98: What If It's Just the Sex?1/23/98: Bill Clinton, Acting Guilty1/20/98: Arafat and the Holocaust Museum1/16/98: Child Care or Feminist Agenda?1/13/98: What We Really Think of Abortion1/9/98: The Dead Era of Budget Deficits Rises Again?1/6/98: "Understandable" Murder and Child Custody1/2/98: Majoring in Sex12/30/97: The Spirit of Kwanzaa12/26/97: Food fights (Games children play)12/23/97: Does Clinton's race panel listen to facts?12/19/97: Welcome to the Judgeocracy, where the law school elite overrules majority rule12/16/97: Do America's Jews support Netanyahu?